Spain: Draft reform of the immigration law, by Peio Aierbe
01 January 2009
Examines proposed changes to immigration law and the regressive impact of European Directives: “It is barbaric to turn the relationship between people working towards regularisation into a crime or offence”
On 19 December 2008 the draft text to reform the Spanish immigration law (
Ley de Extranjería), which modifies 50 of its 71 articles, was approved by the council of ministers (cabinet). The reform seeks to adapt the law to the economic recession and restrictions at the European level. Simultaneously, elements are incorporated on the basis of legal imperative, whether as a result of decisions reached by the Constitutional Court or by European Directives. Apart from this, issues deriving from the experiences of the last eight years are adapted and adjusted. Two matters stand out in the intentions of the law’s reformers: a) they conceive of immigration as a mere facet of the labour force; b) integration is something that migrants are responsible for doing. Work is the key for integration.
The latest reform of the
Ley de Extranjería, which was agreed by the Socialist Party (PSOE) and Popular Party (PP) and gave rise to Law 14/2003, denied basic rights to people in an irregular administrative situation. The Constitutional Court rulings 236/2007 (7 November 2008) and 259/2007 (19 December 2008) ruled unconstitutional articles that regulated the rights of reunion, association, trade union membership and the right to strike by excluding people in an irregular administrative situation. In recognising these rights, the current reform goes no further than to comply with the Constitutional Court’s rulings.
A sizeable part of the reforms imposed by European directives are regressive allowing for increased periods of detention in the
Centros de Internamiento para Extranjeros (CIEs, Detention Centres for Foreigners). There is an increase from a maximum detention period of 40 days to 60 or 70 days. Another hurdle increases the obstacles for people trying to re-unite with their older relatives by requiring that the person making the request is the holder of a permanent or long-term residence permit and that the person who will join them be more than 65 years of age.
The new regulation on the situation of unaccompanied minors is also a backwards step despite the kind words used alongside the standard “superior interest of the minor” formula. What the draft law actually does is open the door widely for repatriation which, in practice, is another way to refer to expulsions in co-operation with the diplomatic representatives of the minor’s country of origin.
It is barbaric to turn the relationship between people working towards regularisation into a crime or offence. And the same thing happens with regards to registration in the municipal records which certifies someone as a resident with an address and allows them basic rights such as health care, regularisation of their status or the renewal of a work and residence permit.
This is the third reform of Law 4/2000, which reformed law 7/1985, since it came into force. It will be followed by a new regulation or a reform of the current one. In view of its substantial contents, it can be seen that the reform is part of a regressive cycle, both in Spain and across the European Union, which views immigrants in a restricted way, emphasizing their dimension as a labour force that is subject to the vicissitudes of the labour market and as a function of the latter.
Detention centres
As part of the campaign for the right of access to detention centres by the Spanish
Migreurop network, the organisation arranged a visit to the Madrid detention centre on the 30 January 2009 in the company of the MEP, Willy Meyer. After obtaining interior ministry authorisation for the visit the Migreurop representatives were denied access at the last minute, resulting in the MEP’s refusal to enter the centre under newly imposed restrictions.
Madrid’s
Centro de Internamiento de Extranjeros remains at the centre of a storm. On 17 February the
SOS Racismo,
Ferrocarril Clandestino and
Médicos del Mundo NGOs filed a lawsuit alleging ill-treatment, physical assaults, a lack of hygiene and untreated disease at the centre, which is located in the
avenida de los Poblados, adjacent to the Aluche neighbourhood in southern Madrid. In the matter of the assaults the case of the Algerian national Alí Khamel, who suffered a double fracture to his arm and bruising on 2 February, was raised. Afterwards Khamel was held incommunicado and nothing was heard of him for a week. Both the prosecution services and the ombudsman are aware of these events. As for the medical conditions, “It is well known”, says a letter signed by 61 of the detainees, “that there are people with serious problems suffering with tuberculosis and AIDS”. The letter also mentioned that hygiene was a problem because of the “lack of disinfectant” for cleaning the bathrooms.
Government “immigrant hunt” criticised
On 18 March 2009, around 200 social organisations filed a lawsuit before the state’s general prosecution service complaining about an “immigrant hunt” that was encouraged by the interior ministry. The organisations requested that the prosecution service investigate the selective round-ups used to identify Spanish migrants without a residence permit that started at the beginning of 2008. As is detailed in the lawsuit, four police trade unions have alleged that they received orders to carry out mass and indiscriminate identification stops in the street or at specific establishments, targeting people with physical traits that indicate foreign origins.
The complainants add that in certain areas of Spain the security forces had been set monthly arrest targets using the criteria of physical characteristics. They demand that the prosecution service should investigate whether promises of compensation, either in money or in kind, were made to officers depending on the number of people they detained. They also want to know if specific directives were issued for the detention of immigrants of Moroccan origin to be a priority.
In their lawsuit, the representatives from these associations insist that such activities are contrary to the Constitution and human rights legislation and they insist that the public prosecutor, as the state’s legal representative, undertake the necessary actions to guarantee that these principles are complied with.
by Peio Aierbe of
Mugak